Friday, January 20, 2017

Diocese of Rockford: no Summorum Pontificum here

Bishop Malloy of Rockford in the USA has told his priests that, whatever Summorum Pontificum may say, they need his permission to celebrate the Traditional Mass.

Though this puts traditionally-minded priests at an advantage to those seeking to implement the Reform of the Reform: in the same letter, Bishop Malloy informs them that celebration versus populum is forbidden.

Does the Pope's writ run to Illinois? The mind boggles.

I've blogged about this over on Rorate Caeli, where the letter can be seen in full.

14 comments:

The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest has an apostolate in his diocese, and their website shows him visiting them, and assisting at the Traditional Mass in choro, on 9th August 2015.

It is true, as you note, that there is a (thriving) oratory of the Institute of Christ the King in Rockford - only 20 minutes or so from the chancery. The Institute oratory was *not* erected by Bishop Malloy, but by his predecessor, Bishop Doran (a surprisingly tradition-friendly bishop) in 2007. It is true, just the same, that +Malloy has appeared more than once at the oratory, most recently for the installation of its new rector, Rev. Canon Benjamin Lee Coggeshal, in August.

In any event, however, the continued presence of an Ecclesia Dei parish/oratory in a diocese with the approbation of the ordinary does not demonstrate a positive attitude toward Summorum Pontificum per se - after all, it was possible to erect such parishes under the old Ecclesia Dei indult (even if this was done less frequently prior to 2007). In this vein, there has been for some time plainly a school of thought in more than a few chanceries that if one *must* have to put up with any traditional-leaning liturgy and attached folderol, it is best to squeeze it all into as few places as possible, where it can be hermetically sealed off. "Oh, you want a Latin sanctus? There's a parish over in Rockford that does that stuff. Perhaps you might check them out. (Conversation quickly terminates)" Tradition, then, becomes that thing those priests and their odd band of lay followers do, not diocesan priests, either as ROTR touches here or there or EF Masses. Catholic tradition thus in effect becomes like an Eastern Rite church, an isolated curiosity which is tolerated, but not publicized very much.

Is this the intent of Bishop Malloy? It is hard to say conclusively. But this letter, combined with some past developments, is certainly suggestive that it could be the foundation for such an effort. It plainly places roadblocks (even if illegally in some cases) in the way of any conceivable effort at introducing/restoring *any* tradition in a parish, should he be so minded as to make use of them when a pastor actually tries to comply and seek permission.

P.S. There is at least one other parish (in Aurora) which offers a public TLM on a regular basis (at least for now!). If there are any private, unadvertised TLM's in the diocese (and there might be, for all I know), I am unaware of them.

Priests of known traditional leanings have been removed from active assignment, no explanation given. More than one instance of pastors ordered to cease celebrating Mass ad orientem (which, yes, is of dubious legality), no explanation given.

As far as traditional Masses 'sine populo' are concerned the bishop is clearly acting 'ultra vires'. See also here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2017/01/trad-lives-matter-us-bishop-attacks-ad-orientem-worship-overrides-summorum-pontificum/ Maybe his decree was a reaction to some specific incident in his diocese?

3.Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal,moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to see all things as he does. Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs. For “cultures are in fact quite diverse and every general principle… needs to be inculturated,if it is to be respected and applied”.3

I have a question about this. As I read Art. 2 of SP, it starts out with "In Masses celebrated without a congregation . . ." and then ends up with "For such a celebration with either Missal, the priest needs no permission from the Apostolic See or from his own Ordinary." 'Such a celebration' seems to refer to one without a congregation.

Art. 5, Section 1 then discusses when the faithful have asked for an EF Mass, and that it should be willingly granted. Does anyone know if any parish priest have granted that request in that diocese, beyond what Athelstane has already provided? What role does Canon 392 have to play here? If no group of the faithful have asked for the EF, is this a tempest in a teapot?

I can only speak to publicly scheduled Masses: At present, there are two regular diocesan TLM's, celebrated by diocesan priests: a weekly Sunday morning at St Mary's in East Dubuque; and a twice monthly Sunday at Holy Angels in Aurora.

As for private Masses as described in Article 2 of SP...I could not say of my own knowledge.

Otherwise, the mainstay of the TLM in the diocese remains the ICRSS's St Mary's Oratory in Rockford proper, which was erected by Bishop Malloy's predecessor, Bishop Doran.

To me, it seems that Art. 2 only applies specifically to "Masses with no congregation." I don't know if 'congregation' is a term of canon law with a specific meaning other than the common one. Still, my reading of Art. 2 does not seem to be as broad as Mr. Shaw reads it in the Rorate article, and as on Fr. Z's blog. I could certainly be wrong, but if I am, I would like to see where I am reading it wrong.

Art. 7 of SP seems to provide a mechanism for those who want the EF to be offered to pursue if a) local priest won't agree to the request of a group of the faithful - - which doesn't seem to be the situation here or if b) the ordinary won't allow the EF, despite being "earnestly requested" to grant such requests by SP. Ultimately ends up at a pontifical commission.

Didn't a traddy-leaning diocesan priest in Rockford go full sedevacantist recently, circulating a scandalous letter to his brother priests in the process? I wonder how much that's informed the bishop's present decisions.

The former Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti, wrote a letter in which he stated: “Article 5§4 (of Summorum Pontificum) states that priests using the Missal of Bl. John XXIII ‘must be qualified to do so.’ Priests ordained after 1970 are unlikely to be qualified to celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 ritual. It is certainly clear that a one week course would be sufficient to so qualify a priest. The discernment is mine. …..As the chief liturgist of our diocesan community I expect to be consulted so that I may confirm that any particular priest, before he begins to do so, is ‘qualified’ to celebrate the extraordinary form in parishes.”

The intention of the former Archbishop is quite clear. But what exactly did Pope Benedict XVI mean by ‘qualified’? Was there ever a statement issued by the CDW to clarify the meaning? And who did Pope Benedict XVI intend to judge that ‘qualification’? Was that ever clarified by the CDW. Unfortunately the vagueness of the document left itself open to manoeuvrings such as that of Archbishop Conti.